The House Armed Services Committee passed the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act on Thursday with a 44-12 vote, authorizing $1.15 trillion in discretionary defense spending and setting the stage for what would be the largest U.S. military budget since World War II when combined with mandatory funding.
The bill, which drew more than 900 proposed amendments, now faces a long legislative road, through the full House, the Senate, a reconciliation process, and a presidential signature, before it becomes law. But the lopsided committee vote, backed initially by both Republican Chairman Mike Rogers and Democratic ranking member Adam Smith, signals broad appetite on Capitol Hill for a major increase in military spending.
That appetite, however, is not universal. The bill's $1.5 trillion combined topline, $1.15 trillion in discretionary funds plus roughly $350 billion in mandatory funding, has drawn sharp criticism from defense restraint advocates who argue the spending dwarfs Cold War-era budgets and fails to make Americans safer. And buried inside the sprawling authorization are provisions that generated heated debate: a billion-dollar battleship, deeper U.S.-Israel military integration, expanded nuclear weapons funding, and a new Pentagon accountability measure born from recent controversies over the firing of senior officers.
Chairman Rogers framed the spending as essential to rebuilding America's defense manufacturing capacity. As the Daily Caller News Foundation reported, Rogers told the committee during his opening statement:
"We're revitalizing the defense industrial base and rebuilding our capacity to produce the capabilities our military needs."
The $1.15 trillion discretionary authorization works toward a final topline investment of $1.5 trillion in fiscal year 2027, with the additional $350 billion coming through mandatory funding outlined in the fiscal 2027 budget.
Joe Costa, director of the Forward Defense Program at the Atlantic Council, backed the spending trajectory. He told the DCNF that the increase is "unquestionably heading in the right direction" given the state of the defense industrial base and the current security environment.
Not everyone agreed. Ben Freeman, director of Democratizing Foreign Policy at The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, called the topline "an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars," noting it would nearly double the height of the Reagan-era military buildup even when controlling for inflation.
"This would be the largest military budget since World War II, even when controlling for inflation. It'd be nearly double the height of the Reagan military build up and far more than we spent at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when we had more than 100,000 troops deployed to conflict zones."
The debate over the right level of defense spending has played out across multiple fronts in Congress this year, with recent Senate votes on multi-year funding packages reflecting the broader tension between fiscal hawks and those who argue national security demands outweigh budget concerns.
One of the most contested line items was $1 billion for the Trump-Class Battleship, authorized under Section 101. Democrats, led by ranking member Smith, tried to strip the funding through an amendment but failed on a 26-30 vote.
The U.S. Navy announced in December 2025 that the first ship in the class would be named the USS Defiant (BBG 1) if completed. The battleship program represents a significant commitment to surface combatant modernization at a time when the Navy faces competing demands across its fleet.
The vote breakdown on the battleship amendment tracked closely with the broader partisan dynamics on the committee, though the final 44-12 passage of the full NDAA suggests many Democrats ultimately supported the overall package despite losing individual fights.
Section 224 of the bill, titled "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative," would link U.S. and Israeli military manufacturing, technology development, and promote wider integration between the two countries' defense sectors. Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to strike the section entirely, but it failed by voice vote.
Freeman called Section 224 "the worst amendment I've seen in an NDAA in years, perhaps ever," arguing it would give the Israeli government "an even greater stranglehold on American politics" by integrating the two nations' military industrial complexes at an unprecedented level.
Benjamin H. Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities, echoed the concern from a different angle. "Marrying the US military more tightly to Israel's is a mistake," Friedman told the DCNF. "We should move in the opposite direction."
The provision's survival reflects the enduring bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel defense relationship on Capitol Hill, even as that relationship faces growing scrutiny from both libertarian-leaning conservatives and progressive Democrats. The committee's voice vote, which does not record individual positions, allowed members to avoid a public stand on the question.
Section 4701 of the NDAA authorizes $27.6 billion for National Nuclear Security Administration weapons activities, a significant investment in the nation's nuclear arsenal. Costa called the spending "positive," pointing to adversary modernization efforts.
"We're seeing our adversaries develop and modernize their nuclear forces, and I think that we need to do the same."
But even with new funding, the U.S. military faces a sobering munitions shortfall that money alone cannot fix quickly. A Center for Strategic and International Studies report found the military has used between 45% and 61% of its Patriot missiles and between 52% and 80% of its THAAD interceptors since the Iran war began.
The production timelines are the real problem. THAAD interceptors take up to 53 months to produce. Patriots average 42 months. That means even if Congress writes the checks today, the shelves stay thin well into 2030.
Costa acknowledged the constraint, noting that for higher-end munitions, "a key vulnerability tends to be the supplier base, and even with significant money, it will still take significant time for those suppliers to build enough capacity to meet demand." This is the core tension in the defense spending debate: authorization is not production. Dollars do not become missiles overnight, and the industrial base that must produce them has atrophied over decades of underinvestment and consolidation among prime contractors.
Freeman took a harder line, arguing the entire framework is broken. He told the DCNF that the U.S. should "stop playing the same game over and over again where we rely on prime contractors who over-promise and under-deliver." The spending increase alone, he argued, would exceed what China, Russia, and Iran spend on their militaries combined.
One amendment that did pass, and may prove consequential, came from Democratic New York Rep. Pat Ryan. His provision requires the Pentagon to notify Congress within five days, in writing, when any flag officer above the grade of O-8 is fired or dismissed. The notification must describe "the performance, concerns, actions, or inactions of that officer that are cause for such removal, transfer, or relief of duty."
The amendment passed by voice vote. It reflects ongoing congressional concern about transparency in military leadership decisions, a topic that has generated friction between the executive branch and lawmakers in both parties. Whether this provision survives the Senate and conference process remains an open question.
The broader legislative environment on Capitol Hill has been marked by contentious votes and procedural battles across multiple policy areas. Senate Republicans have advanced large policy packages on immigration and other priorities, while the House has seen its own internal struggles over floor control and committee authority.
The NDAA must still clear the full House, where Republican leadership has faced recurring challenges managing floor votes on major legislation. After that comes the Senate, where defense spending priorities may differ. Then a conference committee must reconcile the two versions before sending a final bill to the president.
Rogers, Smith, the Pentagon, and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the bill's passage.
Freeman's broadest criticism cut to a question that will shadow the bill through every stage: whether the spending makes Americans safer or simply feeds a defense establishment that consumes more and delivers less. He pointed to the Iran war's domestic consequences, higher gas prices, small businesses shuttered, and asked, "How is any of that helping the American people?"
It is a fair question. But it is also fair to note that the 44-12 committee vote suggests most members of both parties looked at the threat environment and decided now is not the time to cut. The real test is whether $1.5 trillion buys readiness and deterrence, or just buys time. Congress has shown willingness to challenge wasteful mandates in other areas. It should bring the same scrutiny to every dollar in this defense bill.
Taxpayers deserve a military that can fight and win, not a budget that wins only the argument for more spending next year.